I have it on excel (watch out, it is not linear but exponential):=SQRT(A26^2+B26^2)-A26

You plug in 8 km and you get a drop of 5 meters.

Yet in the video below, among the great evidence it offers, it shows that at 8 km away, minute 1:12, you can see the sea foam being produced by the ship. And no one can claim that would not be hidden by a drop of 5 meters:

I have it on excel (watch out, it is not linear but exponential):=SQRT(A26^2+B26^2)-A26

You plug in 8 km and you get a drop of 5 meters.

Yet in the video below, among the great evidence it offers, it shows that at 8 km away, minute 1:12, you can see the sea foam being produced by the ship. And no one can claim that would not be hidden by a drop of 5 meters:

So earth flat was thereby demonstrated by the corporate shills themselves (Pentax and Wikipedia). We can close this forum now and send all these government agents home.

You would have to know exactly how high above sea level the camera is. It's not clear from watching this. It could well be about 5m judging by the shot at 1:19. Since this information is not provided no conclusion can be drawn from this video.

Additionally, the curve is not linear in any way.And please tell us exactly what evidence you have to suggest the CIA controls Wikipedia. There are numerous articles about CIA violations of human rights on there

« Last Edit: February 19, 2015, 06:23:58 AM by kman »

Logged

Quote from: Excelsior John

[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST

Since the second highest building in the picture is building number 10 from the left John Hancock Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock_Center) which is 1127 ft (344 m) tall skyscraper, you still couldn't see (if the Earth was round) anything except the antenna on the top of Willis Tower...

Thank you very much. It is finally proven once and for all. The skyscrapers are a given height, a given distance... everything is perfect. Only the top of them should be seen (roughly the bottom 300 meters should be hidden), and instead we can see the whole thing.

But cikljamas proves it with the Chicago skyscrapers... so thank you for your excellent work. And now all these government agents can go to work for the "911 was done by Bin Laden" and "Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK" departments.

Are you talking about that picture cikljamas posted of the skyscrapers? Sorry, I can't be bother reading his posts, I just skim over them. That picture clearly supports a round Earth. The bottoms of the skyscrapers are obscured by the horizon.

At any time when the sea is calm and the weather clear, the light of the Eddystone may be seen from an elevation of five feet above the water level; and according to the Admiralty directions, it "maybe seen thirteen nautical (or fifteen statute), miles," 1 or one mile further away than the position of the observers on the above-named occasion; yet, on that occasion, and at a distance of only fourteen statute miles, notwithstanding that it was a very fine autumn day, and a clear background existed, not only was the lantern, which is 80 feet high, not visible, but the top of the vane, which is 100 feet above the foundation, was, as stated in the report "entirely out of sight." There was, however, a considerable "swell" in the sea beyond the breakwater.

That vessels, lighthouses, light-ships, buoys, signals, and other known and fixed objects are sometimes more distinctly seen than at other times, and are often, from the same common elevation, entirely out of sight when the sea is rough, cannot be denied or doubted by any one of experience in nautical matters.

The conclusion which such observations necessitate and force upon us is, that the law of perspective, which is everywhere visible on land, is modified when observed in connection with objects on or near the sea.But how modified?If the water were frozen and at perfect rest, any object on its surface would be seen again and again as often as it disappeared and as far as telescopic or magnifying power could be brought to bear upon it. But because this is not the case--because the water is always more or less in motion, not only of progression but of fluctuation and undulation, the "swells" and waves into which the surface is broken, operate to prevent the line of sight from passing absolutely parallel to the horizontal water line.

If it is argued that "there are times when the surface of the sea is perfectly calm, and that at such times at least, if the earth is a plane, the telescope ought to restore the hull of a ship, irrespective of distance, providing its power is great enough to magnify it," the reply is that practical experiments have proved that during what is called a "dead calm," the undulations or waves in the water amount to more than 20 inches, as will be seen from the following extracts:--

ON THE DIMENSIONS OF OCEAN WAVES.

"This interesting subject was very fully entered into at a recent meeting of the Academy of Sciences, by Admiral Coupvent de Bois:

"It is not easy to ascertain the height of the waves of the ocean; nevertheless, the method adopted for the purpose is capable of affording sufficiently exact results. The point in the shrouds corresponding with a tangent to the tops of the highest waves is ascertained by gradually ascending them, and making observations until it is reached. That point being determined, the known dimensions of the ship give the height of the waves above the line of flotation, which corresponds with the horizon of the sea, in the trough of the wave. In this way the following results were obtained:--

"The lengths of the waves have also been measured, and it has been found that, for example, waves of 27 feet in height, are about 1640 feet in length."

It is well known that even on lakes of small dimensions and also on canals, when high winds prevail for some time in the same direction, the ordinary ripple is converted into comparatively large waves. On the "Bedford Canal," during the windy season, the water is raised into undulations so high, that through a powerful telescope at an elevation of 8 inches, a boat two or three miles away will be invisible; but at other times, through the same telescope the same kind of boat may be seen at a distance of six or eight miles.

During very fine weather when the water has been calm for some days and become as it were settled down, persons are often able to see with the naked eye from Dover the coast of France, and a steamer has been traced all the way across the channel.At other times when the winds are very high, and a heavy swell prevails, the coast is invisible, and the steamers cannot be traced the whole distance from the same altitude, even with a good telescope.

Instances could be greatly multiplied, but already more evidence has been given than the subject really requires, to prove that when a telescope does not restore the hull of a distant vessel it is owing to a purely special and local cause...

Thank you very much. It is finally proven once and for all. The skyscrapers are a given height, a given distance... everything is perfect. Only the top of them should be seen (roughly the bottom 300 meters should be hidden), and instead we can see the whole thing.

But cikljamas proves it with the Chicago skyscrapers... so thank you for your excellent work. And now all these government agents can go to work for the "911 was done by Bin Laden" and "Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK" departments.

Are you talking about that picture cikljamas posted of the skyscrapers? Sorry, I can't be bother reading his posts, I just skim over them. That picture clearly supports a round Earth. The bottoms of the skyscrapers are obscured by the horizon.

Nice video, cikljamas. Thank you.

herewegoround, when you don't read posts of people who use the curvature formulas provided by your colleagues at wikipedia, then it is time to move to another department. Or maybe time to go back in the streets, fighting crime. Probably you've been working too long for this department and you should switch department. For example, a good one would be "ISIS decapitations". The lines there are pretty easy: "how dare you insult the memory of the victims?" and "go tell their parents that the beheadings are fake!". A simple copy/paste of these lines will do. Pretty soon there will the internet shutdown anyway, so you will have to look for another job.

Wow. As I said to sceptimatic and cikljams, I hope for your sake that you're a troll. If you genuinely believe what you are saying then you have got serious psychological problems. I'm not even addressing what you said, it's embarrassing.

In a world so full of stupidity, and dishonesty, the few ones who speak the truth are not going to be popular.

In the meanwhile, you still have your blasphemous avatars, and you're still doing character assassination instead of confronting the facts: 1) Chicago skyline and 2) Wikipedia formula for the earth curvature.

There are better ways to make a living available. You can ask to be moved to another department, where you don't have to spread lies to make a living.

At any rate, the amount of intelligent people who, on this forum, spend their time denying the truth alerts me to the fact that we're on to something very very important.

This quantity and quality of government agents per truther is nowhere to be found on the web. This must be the most important cover-up I've ever come across.

Well, it could also be a Heiwa alt I guess, but Heiwa doesn't seem the type that cares about anything than promoting his site.

In a world so full of stupidity, and dishonesty, the few ones who speak the truth are not going to be popular.

Such idiots are everywhere, and they include all my relatives, my parents, too. The dishonest ones are much rarer, because in order to be dishonest, you have to know the truth. And here there is a lot of them.

In the meanwhile, you still have your blasphemous avatars, and you're still doing character assassination instead of confronting the facts: 1) Chicago skyline and 2) Wikipedia formula for the earth curvature.

There are better ways to make a living available. You can ask to be moved to another department, where you don't have to spread lies to make a living.

At any rate, the amount of intelligent people who, on this forum, spend their time denying the truth alerts me to the fact that we're on to something very very important.

This quantity and quality of government agents per truther is nowhere to be found on the web. This must be the most important cover-up I've ever come across.

Following allegations of sexual misconduct he reinvented himself as an itinerant lecturer...

Which is the same character assassination you're doing with me right here. That's how I know that you, too, work for the government.

Think how much better you'd feel if you spoke the truth, instead of spreading lies. Telling the truth feels good. Lying... I don't know how you can do this for a living.

Ultimately what you are doing is fighting, dishonestly, for a system that oppresses the weak. The weak don't even realize this, and they stay on your side. The weak aren't always good, but it's good to not oppress the weak. The system you're working for stands for injustice, meanness, dishonesty. Why hurt people, whom you could spare? A system that causes unnecessary suffering can't be good. Stop doing what you are doing. Stop being dishonest.

Will belief in the Bible survive?Its enemies came to Dayton with zeal undiminishedTo tell the world that Genesis was finished.

Bryan fought nobly for the Creationist cause,And many of his points drew loud applause.The court ruled in his favor, but many could seeThat the other side had won the vic'try.

One of the main reasons why this was so,Was that of all the questions that Darrow could throwThe one about Joshua saying "Sun Stand Thou Still"Was what angered Bryan and set him up for the kill.

For, even by that date everyone had learnedThat the earth daily on an axis turned,And sped around the sun that wasn't mov'inNot being aware that this too was unproven.

That put Bryan between a rock and a hard place,For the Bible said the earth didn't go thru space!So the evolutionists made fun of the Bible and from thereHave brought education to its present state of despair.

Bryan did his best, and if he fell below perfection,It was because he didn't see the Copernican Connection!Evolution is a lie, and scientific it cannot be;But Copernicanism is a bigger one, and it started in 1543!

So, if you would like to see Bible Truths restored,(And if skunking evolutionism would make you smile-)Let's do it right this timeAND PUT COPERNICANISM ON TRIAL!

The fact that the Copernican cosmology underpinning Communism and Humanism is erected totally on phony "reconstructed Mathematics" from Copernicus thru Einstein to NASA's "virtual reality" deceptions [See: NASAs Hanky-Panky, Virtual Reality Fraud] is a fact that must be grasped without further delay. All who are really interested in exposing and bringing down the evolution myth must begin: a) To depend on the God behind the geocentric Word; b) Get rid of their fears of "science falsely so-called"; and: c) Get informed and begin to attack the Copernican taproot of these deceptions masquerading as "science".

It's God's Word, after all, and He will not have it return to Him void on this Creation matter indefinitely! (Isaiah 55:11)

But Soviet Communism is finished, someone objects, "so what's the big deal about what their scientists said?"

The problem, Creationist friend, (not to ignore the little matter of the rise of Communist China to Super State Status...) is that Humanism is in place all over the world today and Humanism has exactly the same roots in Copernicanism and Darwinism as Soviet Marxism had!

It's the same Bible destroyer as before, only now--outside China Cuba, N.Vietnam, and N. Korea--wearing a different hat. The whole world is making ready to unite under a Humanist New World Order and usher in a Humanist New Age. The cards are dealt. It's a done deal!

And the real purpose, the hidden agenda, of this incipient (and insidious) cardboard utopia about to descend on all of us??

Simply this:...A one world religion where all beliefs except Bible Christianity will be allowed.... ("Hate Crime" laws [See: Hate Crime Laws])--now on the books and steadily broadening their scope toward this end--will be the instrument used to criminalize New Testament Christianity in the pantheistic [See: Paganism Pt 1, Paganism Pt 2] New World Order.)

3.Did Mercury Poisoning Cause the Death Of Tycho Brahe?

The following separate posting under Johannes Kepler is obliquely suggestive regarding the option that someone else could have administered the poison....

Johannes Kepler

· At one point, Kepler held that the sun was God the Father, and that the light emanating from the sun was the Logos or Christ.

· Thus Copernicanism held great religious significance for him.

[In sharp contrast to his assistant Kepler, Brahe was noted for his unflinching opposition to Copernicanism, of course....]

-----------

Again, for very rare insights into Kepler's background and work with Brahe that go way beyond being "obliquely suggestive" that Kepler could very well have killed him, you will need to go to the book "The Earth Is Not Moving." It is worth the read!

Not until you admit the truth. We have now proved it beyond any doubts:1) your formula2) your picture3) = flat earth

To my 3 buddies flat-earthers: As you might have noticed, they are now doing personal attacks, character assassination, because they are unable to confront the formula and the picture, which their colleagues have posted on wikipedia.

We should all insist with the following strategy: keep pushing the Chicago skyline pictures, and the wikipedia formula. Until they're brainwashed, and start accepting the truth, just like they pushed lies on us with the opposite theory, for 500 years.

Take also note of their Luciferian signatures and blasphemous avatars. I don't think it is a coincidence. These people worship the devil.

This image claims to give the exact formula for sightline distance. Doesn't the author know that the little wavy line thingy in this context '~' means "is approximately equal to"? 'Approximately' isn't 'exact'. How do you find this stuff?

But anyway, the first part, before the '~' is, in fact the exact geometric solution (neglecting refraction).

The next part, with the 1000m plateau between the observer and target is basically correct - you are interested in the heights above the elevation of the intervening horizon, and the horizon from 2m above a 1000m plateau would be about 5.8 km. If the intervening terrain is not a level surface, however, things get trickier, as seen in the following example from southern Poland.

The accompanying text says the picture of the Tatra Mountains is taken from Sandomierz, at elevation 400m at a distance of 197 km. He then proceeds to subtract 440m from the summit elevation of Lomnica (2634m) and enters 2194m and his own elevation as 0m into the calculator (presumably, the reported 400m is a typo and should have been 440m). This is not correct. Looking at a topo map of Poland, we can see the broad Vistula valley is between Sandomierz and the Tatras (along the border with Slovakia). In the image, we see a nearby ridge in the foreground slightly below the camera, then little or nothing until the Tatras rise beyond. Putting the correct values of 2634m for Lomnica, and 400m or 440m for the observers height, we get 255 km or 258 km for horizon distance - well beyond the required 197 km in both cases. An intervening 440m plateau, or even ridge in the wrong place, could indeed block the view of the distant mountains, but such is not the case.

How do you find this stuff?

Then there's some other "horizon in the mountains" where the picture's so bad, who knows what the point is. Given the above, it's no doubt wrong, too.

Since the second highest building in the picture is building number 10 from the left John Hancock Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock_Center) which is 1127 ft (344 m) tall skyscraper, you still couldn't see (if the Earth was round) anything except the antenna on the top of Willis Tower...

So I presume this means that you are 46 miles from Chicago, and the photo is taken from 3m above lake level. How good are those numbers?

Scaling the Willis tower from the top down, the building widens about 70m below the top, and it looks like there's another 100m or so visible below that, making the part hidden below the horizon roughly 270m or so. We'll assume the base of the building is at lake level although the ground level of those towers will be more than a few meters above lake level as well, but since I don't know it, we'll ignore that. If the camera is at an elevation 4.5m above the lake (eye level for an average-height man standing 3m above lake level), the visual horizon for 270m is 41 miles, so we're in the ballpark. Like I asked, how good are those numbers? Just judging from the size and position of that nav light, 10 feet (3m) looks too low.

Standard calculations for the spherical Earth and some justifiable estimates get us within shouting distance of completely explaining the initial claim. This begs the obvious question, though... if the Earth were flat, why don't we see the entire Chicago skyline down to the lakeshore in this photo? Since we obviously see only the uppermost floors of the tallest skyscrapers from 40 or so miles across Lake Michigan, cut off by the sharp horizon of the lake surface, this photo clearly supports the spherical Earth and completely undermines the notion that the Earth is flat. Your turn. You presented this picture. You to explain it.

Wow, excellent objection. Just when I thought you could not find anything more to object, you found the only objection left.

Now I need help from my buddies flat-earthers, because I can't answer how relevant 2 or even 3 meters would be to our measurement. I don't think that if I place the camera 5 meters high I will offset the (alleged) 5 meter drop. But I can't argue any further without help from some mathematician flat-earther.

Let's even allow the objection that the camera could be 5 meters high. Would this offset the 5-meters drop? I can't argue on this. I need help from the experts.

Using a diagram from Rowbotham's book "Earth Not a Globe", a small amount of viewing height greatly extends the horizon and the point at which any visual drop actually begins.

Thank you very much. It is finally proven once and for all. The skyscrapers are a given height, a given distance... everything is perfect. Only the top of them should be seen (roughly the bottom 300 meters should be hidden), and instead we can see the whole thing.

Nope. That picture was taken from much higher than 3 meters. Cikljamas's integrity regarding his posts is also questionable, as he refuses to address the distortion added to a world map he posts now and then.

This image claims to give the exact formula for sightline distance. Doesn't the author know that the little wavy line thingy in this context '~' means "is approximately equal to"? 'Approximately' isn't 'exact'. How do you find this stuff?

But anyway, the first part, before the '~' is, in fact the exact geometric solution (neglecting refraction).

The next part, with the 1000m plateau between the observer and target is basically correct - you are interested in the heights above the elevation of the intervening horizon, and the horizon from 2m above a 1000m plateau would be about 5.8 km. If the intervening terrain is not a level surface, however, things get trickier, as seen in the following example from southern Poland.

The accompanying text says the picture of the Tatra Mountains is taken from Sandomierz, at elevation 400m at a distance of 197 km. He then proceeds to subtract 440m from the summit elevation of Lomnica (2634m) and enters 2194m and his own elevation as 0m into the calculator (presumably, the reported 400m is a typo and should have been 440m). This is not correct. Looking at a topo map of Poland, we can see the broad Vistula valley is between Sandomierz and the Tatras (along the border with Slovakia). In the image, we see a nearby ridge in the foreground slightly below the camera, then little or nothing until the Tatras rise beyond. Putting the correct values of 2634m for Lomnica, and 400m or 440m for the observers height, we get 255 km or 258 km for horizon distance - well beyond the required 197 km in both cases. An intervening 440m plateau, or even ridge in the wrong place, could indeed block the view of the distant mountains, but such is not the case.

How do you find this stuff?

Then there's some other "horizon in the mountains" where the picture's so bad, who knows what the point is. Given the above, it's no doubt wrong, too.

Since the second highest building in the picture is building number 10 from the left John Hancock Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock_Center) which is 1127 ft (344 m) tall skyscraper, you still couldn't see (if the Earth was round) anything except the antenna on the top of Willis Tower...

So I presume this means that you are 46 miles from Chicago, and the photo is taken from 3m above lake level. How good are those numbers?

Scaling the Willis tower from the top down, the building widens about 70m below the top, and it looks like there's another 100m or so visible below that, making the part hidden below the horizon roughly 270m or so. We'll assume the base of the building is at lake level although the ground level of those towers will be more than a few meters above lake level as well, but since I don't know it, we'll ignore that. If the camera is at an elevation 4.5m above the lake (eye level for an average-height man standing 3m above lake level), the visual horizon for 270m is 41 miles, so we're in the ballpark. Like I asked, how good are those numbers? Just judging from the size and position of that nav light, 10 feet (3m) looks too low.

Standard calculations for the spherical Earth and some justifiable estimates get us within shouting distance of completely explaining the initial claim. This begs the obvious question, though... if the Earth were flat, why don't we see the entire Chicago skyline down to the lakeshore in this photo? Since we obviously see only the uppermost floors of the tallest skyscrapers from 40 or so miles across Lake Michigan, cut off by the sharp horizon of the lake surface, this photo clearly supports the spherical Earth and completely undermines the notion that the Earth is flat. Your turn. You presented this picture. You to explain it.

We've been through this before. You made a scale model of this scene and it was consistent with a spherical Earth. Move on.

In Italy we call your post "supercazzola": a long incomprehensible bullshit talk to confuse the opponent, typical of students who haven't studied are are being tested or politicians who don't know how to reply to some uncomfortable question. Why don't you reply as simply as I made my point, on two lines?

However, congratulations for not doing any character assassination and being the only one who discussed the content. The others have given up a long time ago, proving to be lazy government agents or extremely stupid sheeplem who think that being with the majority makes them right. Similar supercazzola from 29silhouette, although very concise.

I can't be Scepti. Just read our private messages and you'll see that we are not the same person. I think any decent government agent should have access to our private messages and IP addresses. What kind of tools did they give you?

Well as a government operative I have the standard issue XT-234a ip scrambler. I can only assume any half competent person that wants to spout the truth on here and I then have to take time out of talking to my coworkers to discredit on this site would have a similar ability. So your ip is meaningless in this equation.

Cikljamas and acenci, I love your work. Very interesting. I love you strength against mass opposition. This is what I like to see. People that are awake.The globalists are getting more and more desperate as time goes on - you can see it a mile off with their responses and their constant appeal to authority, as well as trying to figure out who's an ALT.